Is it appropriate in debate to declare victory before the argument phase has closed for voting?

I find a growing debate habit disturbing: Claiming victory in a debate during argument rounds. I am of the opinion that such declarations as "I win because... [plug in any number of reasons]. or worse, declare victory with no justification. I believe the better declaration is something like "My BoP is proven because... [plug point 1, point 2, etc.] Debate participants do not decide victory; voters do. To declare victory in argument rounds is arrogant, even when the opponent forfeits or concedes. Some have argued that concession is a conduct advantage when a participant realizes his burden is not going to be proven. I tend to agree. It is honorable under those circumstances. But for the other participant to declare victory dismisses the point that, otherwise, they may not have presented such a definitive argument, sourcing, S&G and conduct, themselves. Further, I'd argue that  eary claim of victory approaches the severity of vote rigging, because it may encourage a voter to be swayed by the declaration. I suggest we wait for the voters' assessment of victory, and leave it at that. Strange things happen in voting, and it may be unfortunate that debate points cannot be withdrawn, thus resulting in negative points. I believe the suggested conduct would raise the level and value of debating.

Some of us are Rottweilers, pit bulls, alsations and such.

Some of us are cockapoos, welsh corgies and golden retrievers.

You don't ask the former to play as gentle as the latter, nor do you demand the latter to be as rough as the former. We are what we are.

Isn't there always a bigger Rottweiler? Even Rots can be intimidated. And debate should not be a forum for big dog games. We have a forum for that. Let the dogs lie with their appropriate vomit.

Of course. In such debates both are arrogant. 

Asking a debater like Bsh1 not to put 'Vote Pro ooh lala' at the end of every one of his debates (with an explanation of how he 'objectively won') is like asking a ballerina not to do that extra spin and super sharp toe-point just to flex on someone. 

Some people enjoy the show, some like it grimy with taunting, prodding and brutal ad hominem. Others like it tame and docile. Some like it in between. You like it tame and docile (actually you don't, you just filter your aggression through carefully chosen veiled harshness and instead of arrogance you have condescension).

In the end, we all pick our poison. If you come to a debate site only to play nice, you aint built for this shit G.

You can ask Eminem to 'play nice' but it just isn't possible for him to shine in that style.

Well, uh, it is always more polite to NOT declare victory before the argument period ends. However, some of them are confident because FFers who have little tendencies of coming back would lose almost 100% against a relatively skilled opponent. If the rules say that forfeiting every round except for one count for FF and will count as a loss and the opponent forfeited all but one round, then it is safe to say that the rule-maker that debated won the game.

Yeah, for some cases. Small disputes about the Burden of Proof and resolution-related matters DO NOT make it a win. But a obvious FF'er probably does.